Readers Reply: “Telling a Story with Things”

Mille grazie to everyone who wrote in about Telling a Story with Things, this week’s piece on the Museum on Main Street (MOMS) definition of an exhibition.

The question: Do all exhibitions “tell a story with things”?

Reader MK wrote in about “real things”:

I love the MOMS definition. As a visitor, I prefer exhibits that offer real things vs. solely audiovisual media (Virtual King Tut), prop objects and models (The Creation Museum), cast figures (Pequot Museum), replicated scenery (many nature centers), etc. 

JT offered the word “experiences”:

I was tempted to say they tell a story with facts. But then I imagined how annoyed I would be (have been) when a museum/exhibit consists of nothing but information panels, regardless of how well they are presented/produced … Maybe "experiences" could somehow do the job without involving "things" but I still think I'd feel cheated without some physical objects to walk around/touch/marvel at.

And DF wrote, simply:

Seems a bit reductive in my opinion and not necessarily true. I think it depends on what you consider a "thing" here. What if the "things" are films or media based?

Here’s the (ahem) thing:
Asking museum folks to define “exhibition” might be one of those simple requests that turn out impossible. Even so, “things” — whatever those are — seem to remain central for many of us.

Warmly,
Jonathan